I keep hearing from some people that we indeed found the WMDs we went to war over, despite the fact that I've seen no proof of that. Could you show me where the US government/military or President Bush acknowledges that these were found?
I'm assuming that everyone knows the difference between the WMDs Iraq had and used in the 80s and 90s, and the ones we went to war over. So no saying "he gasses thousands of Kurds".
Also, has the US government/military or President Bush every acknowledged and evidence that they were moved to Syria?
Thank you
2007-03-15 10:04:45 · 13 answers · asked by Take it from Toby 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
dsl67: Basically to sum up without getting into it too deep, we went to war over WMDs that were supposedly produced after 1998.
2007-03-15 10:22:54 · update #1
I'm not arguing if we should or shouldn't have gone to war, or about the other reasons to go to war. I am spacifically asking about people saying we did find the WMDs that we went to war over.
2007-03-15 10:24:39 · update #2
Every one knows that Bush hasn't, he has at numerous times admitted in his speeches that the Intel was inaccurate himself. Shifting the blame and story has always been the way he manipulates the sheep that will listen.
2007-03-15 10:13:23 · answer #1 · answered by leonard bruce 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wether you've seen proof or not is irrelevant. It's classified material and YOU don't need to see it.
In a speech given just after the start of the Iraqi War, Hillary Clinton said that she viewed the evidencve and personally determined that the cause was justified, and that Saddam represented a "clear and present threat". She currently denies seeing anything of the kind, even though video and audio recordings of the speech are still present today. So, if Hillary will admit that they where there, what do you think?
There is no difference. We went to war over biological weapons, if you were under the impression that we where looking for nukes, that's your problem.
Yes they have. The problem is that the liberals out there (such as yourself) refuse to allow military action against the Syrians. It's a classic case of Democrats telling Republicans to solve a problem and then tying their hands. There have been attempts to take action on Syria, but the democrats in the congress and senate have been blocking the attempts.
2007-03-15 10:19:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aviator, which are the WMD's that we went to war over? Is there a specific list of WMDs that were at issue? And why don't the ones that we actually did find count?
Wasn't the real issue Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN resolutions concerning disarmament? Or Iraq's failure to even allow inspectors into the country to do their job?
Didn't the the Kay and Duelfer inspectors find WMD programs such as a 'Poisons and Toxins for Asassinations Program" that the UN never even knew about? Didn't the Duelfer report say that Iraq was trying to end the financial sanctions so that they could start to finance their WMD programs at greater levels?
We did find WMD's, but that was only one of a myriad of reasons that we went to war in Iraq.
2007-03-15 10:18:57 · answer #3 · answered by dsl67 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i assume that includes the 5 hundred + nerve gas shells coalition forces ran for the time of in Iraq between 2002 and 2005.(one became even used as a roadside bomb that did no longer explode)..or the 5 hundred kilos of "yellow cake" in part processed uranium Iraq only this year finally bought to Canada to fabricate gas rods! only using fact Bush became a dork and refused to jam the data of huge WMD down the throats of the Lib Haters does no longer mean i bypass to take a seat down via on a similar time as some Pinhead makes use of this made up excuse to trash our conflict attempt or our us of a!
2016-10-18 11:34:42 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In case you have not found out from the other responses, there were hardly any found. The only ones found, were about 500 chemical weapons. Saddam did have WMDs at one point however (Gulf War)
2007-03-15 10:14:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out the Duelfer report. There were documented about 30+ instances of banned chemical weapons found.
These weren't necessarilty the stockpiles we were looking for, but guess how many the UN Resolutions mentioned in the Joint Resolution of Congress allowed?
None.
2007-03-15 10:14:27 · answer #6 · answered by Thehawk 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Two very strange things happens:
When questioned about WMD Bush always change the subject to 9/11 or terrorist fighting on American soil and his loyal amazing Repugs actually interpret that to mean they were found.
Both phenomena leave me wide-eyed and gasping for breath.
2007-03-15 10:11:33 · answer #7 · answered by nemesis 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
if mommyof4 were to actually read the article that she posted a link to...she would find that these 500 weapons people keep talking about, are degraded and old...from the gulf war...
i don't think 500 low quality degraded chemicalweapons are the WMD that Bush was trying to make a big deal about...
2007-03-15 10:22:56 · answer #8 · answered by Paulien 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
They found some chemical substance that was like 20 years old. They made a big tadooo over it, but it got downplayed when they found out how old it was.
2007-03-15 10:08:24 · answer #9 · answered by CC 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He may have been referring to the Wild Mountain Donkeys they found.
2007-03-15 10:09:04 · answer #10 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋